Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
and I am tired of the nanny states thank you!!! I see nothing wrong with the old Micky D's Happy meals once in awhile. If parents are going to take their kids to places like Micky D's weekly or more, this simple change will make no difference. They will continue to give their kids junk food.
and I am tired of the nanny states thank you!!! I see nothing wrong with the old Micky D's Happy meals once in awhile. If parents are going to take their kids to places like Micky D's weekly or more, this simple change will make no difference. They will continue to give their kids junk food.
Nita
It isn't a nanny "state" if a corporation makes a decision to add some healthier food options to its menu.
Kids (and Americans in general) continue to get fatter and unhealthier. While I think McDonald's is gross, perhaps those kids who are fed a steady diet of fast food because of inept, lazy, or uneducated parents, will get a meal with some nutritional benefits. If McDonalds chooses to do so, that's it's right, and is a small but positive step in the right direction.
It isn't a nanny "state" if a corporation makes a decision to add some healthier food options to its menu.
Kids (and Americans in general) continue to get fatter and unhealthier. While I think McDonald's is gross, perhaps those kids who are fed a steady diet of fast food because of inept, lazy, or uneducated parents, will get a meal with some nutritional benefits. If McDonalds chooses to do so, that's it's right, and is a small but positive step in the right direction.
but it is being pressured by "nanny State" It started with cities forcing them to do so, like San Francisco. I agree about kids eating junk food because parents are either too lazy or uneducated to know good nutrician, but as a foods and nutrician specialist (in my younger years) and having taught classes I know this will make almost no difference and I just think we are getting carried away with deciding what others should do. But, I will add, I guess this isn't the place for discussing this, so I will not say anything more on the subject.
but it is being pressured by "nanny State" It started with cities forcing them to do so, like San Francisco. I agree about kids eating junk food because parents are either too lazy or uneducated to know good nutrician, but as a foods and nutrician specialist (in my younger years) and having taught classes I know this will make almost no difference and I just think we are getting carried away with deciding what others should do. But, I will add, I guess this isn't the place for discussing this, so I will not say anything more on the subject.
I have been ordering happy meals for my Neice and Nephew like this forever, one gets fries the other apples and they divy the two.
Luckily they are kind of weird kids, they prefer fruits over junk most of the time...
Those apples do come with a side of caramel type stuff for dipping..
So they are dropping some grease and still keeping the highly processed caramel like sauce..
reducing the french fry portion by more than half and automatically adding apples to the popular children's meals, after coming under pressure from consumer groups to provide healthier fare.
so you are cutting 115 calories of french fries and replacing that with 100 calories of apples with caramel sauce? net benefit 15 calories. makes no difference for a kid and an apple is no more nutritious than french fries.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.